Hi guys,

Who knows, maybe such a thread could lead to something... What questions / feedback / suggestions would you ask/talk about with the devs ?

Here are a few of mine :

- At the moment we can eat food during combats. Sometimes it's better than healing potions and it's now free (no actions/bonus actions) for mushrooms.
Some players find it a bit immersion breaking and it devalue the usefullness of healing potions/spells.
Can you explain us why you choose to go this way with food ?

- Everyone agree that the verticality in the game is incredible. Having bonuses through highround is great because we have to play with verticality.
On the other hand, it looks like being higher than the ennemy is very powerfull especially because it gives an advantages to your allies and a disadvantage to your ennemies.
Advantages and disadvantages are the most powerfull bonuses you can have in D&D and giving them easily through highground devalue many spells (i.e faery fire), abilities (i.e reckless attack) and actions (i.e hide).
Lots of us suggested an increased range for ranged weapons + maybe a +2 to attack rolls or +2 to AC if you're higher.
Did you try to give other bonuses to players during your playtests and what were your conclusions ?

- At the moment jump is mixed with disengage.
According to some players, this leads to another very easy advantage for melee characters (backstab).
This allow us to easily increase our %to hit at the single cost of a bonus action without triggering any AoO. We're all jumping at each turns with our melee character, that's a basic of combats.
Some players suggested to dismiss jump and disengage and to make jump a part of the movement instead of a bonus action.
What are your feelings about it and why did you decide to mix jump with disengage ?

- About the chain mechanic. It looks like a fact that this system increase the number of click we have to do if we compare it to other systems. We also have many missclick and "missdrag" for a benefit that is not really clear both in SP and in MP, and both on console or on PC.
Can you explain us why this system is the best according to you and could you consider something else ?

- More actions exists in D&D. Some of them could really increase our possibilities in combats while increasing the tactical value of the game and synergies between companions. I'm thinking about : ready action, shove to prone, dodge action, help as described in the PHB.
Do you plan to add more of those "common" actions ?


Feel free to add yours but try to stay constructive.

This thread is made with the hope someone at Larian would agree to talk a bit with us.

sure

Do Gith make love on dragons?

Does a druid feel more romantic with animals or humans?

Since this game is rated Mature will there be a feature to smoke a pipe?

Since this is d&d Larian and not 5e will we get to make pizza?

BTW Max, any questions related to the chain mechanic is pointless. I read a post a little bit ago that this game wasn't advertised as a RTS and will be sticking to the chain system.

Can't see the point with RTS (Wasteland, xcom, pathfinder in turn base, temple of elemental evil, those games aren't RTS the old IE games aren't really RTS too).

Anyway asking why they like it or find it better is just a way of discussing the games mechanics. Agree or not is something else.

But it looks you're not very interrested to discuss about the mechanics and trying to understand their goals

Personnaly.I think such Q/A could :
- close a few topics
- help us to give a better feedback
- create a link between the players and the devs.
- why not help devs to think about things they didn't consider

This looks like good old fashioned journalism.

I think this is a neat idea for a thread. It's a refreshing change from the usual types of thread being started. I must say, I have zero hope that this will elicit the slightest response from Larian. But that's good in a way : I could only be positively surprised if I turn out to be wrong. At any rate, I like the idea, so ... I'm game.


- What is your philosophy for EA communication ?

Since the EA was open, you have only communicated through your Community Updates, with the occasional Panel From Hell. A number of players have found the content of these communications to carefully avoid the most contentious issues discussed in the community. You must have noticed these topics and it cannot be an accident that you didn't address them. So you must have come to the conclusion that it is preferable to avoid these topics altogether. One would naively assume that more communication is good : it could allow some frequent requests to be dropped and make the feedback reading process easier, for instance. So what is your rationale for avoiding revealing your plans and state of mind on these issues ? In your opinion, what could be the gains and losses, the benefits and risks, if you were to let people know what your vision and thoughts are ?


- How has work been going and what is your timeline for full release ?

In addition to the usual problems of working under the covid19 pandemic, you have now seen the game be played "for real", by players. This generated a lot of feedback, and perhaps brought significant changes to your roadmap. Are things going better than expected ? Or did you find more problems and areas for work than you anticipated ? Before EA, you said you would spend at least one year in EA. Some players have encouraged you to take the time that you need to finish the game properly, taking two years if need be. On the other hand, Swen mentioned in the Panel From Hell 2 that the game "has to ship" at some point. Do you have a hard time limit that you don't want to exceed ?


- How informative are player data at the moment ? How much are you learning from it ? What was that thing about Bless ?

In an interview for Wireframe, you explained that you could see players not using a buffing spell like Bless very much. And that this seemingly supported the view that players want fireworks and damage. What did you mean by that exactly ? Some players feared you were not drawing correct conclusions from the wealth of data you are presently collecting. And that the data collected now would be of lesser value than the data you will be collecting in 3 or 6 months, where you might have a lower volume of EA players.

Will you please respond to the issues raised in the megathreads: party size, height advantage / disadvantage, movement mechanics and resting mechanics.




Solasta has indicated that it will allow players to select which house rules players want to use. Do you plan to follow suit?

I would love to know if they plan on leaving it so you can change your prepared spells at any time (it could be a holdover from DOS), or if they plan on fixing that so it’s like D&D. It’s a bit hard to evaluate party balance during EA unless we know either way.

I found (probably linked somewhere on this forum) an old interview/stream/... in which they said something like we would only be able to prepare spells and level up at camp.
I think it was in the first interviews about the game. I hope they didn't change their mind.

Any time you are not in combat, you are out of danger, and you can go to camp/have a long rest. So any time you are not actually in combat, you can prepare spells ( and level up I guess ) by going to camp. The 5e rules themselves have no consequences for going to camp except time spent doing so ( This is just one of the inane rules that DnD has always had, and somehow never replaced with something superior ).

So, going to camp just to change spells in the BG3 videogame would be time consuming, boring and pointless, and would attract a lot of criticism. As BG3 has no concept of time, due to the co-op design ( player timelines are not synchronised ) it really makes perfect sense to allow spell preparation/level up when outside combat.

The only reason you might restrict spell preparation/level up to the long rest in BG3 is if you artificially create a hazard as a consequence of resting. In early versions of DnD ( and BG1/2 ) this was by a RNG against "wandering monster" tables. You could do that, but I don't know how popular that would be either.

So once again, the big problem here is the ‘camp anytime’ mechanic. In D&D you have to think carefully about your spell choice, you may eschew utility spells like Knock in favour of some combat spells, but get three levels into a dungeon and majorly regret it. In BG3 you just change your spells while standing in front of the door. Basically having your entire spellbook available 24/7 is quite a change, and makes wizards insanely versatile considering the only cap on their number of spells is how many there are in the game.

My question:

Why did you abandon your fanbase and stop communication?
Even electronic arts has more communication to their fans and THAT says something.

Very good questions with good reasoning and a polite tone. I hope Larian will start to communicate more.

I'd like to know about the resting system.

You have chosen to not put any kind of risk factor or resource tax on the resting system. Have you considered the implications to class balance when spellcasters who operate on a "per day" basis can rest at will and peak in every encounter?

A big part of excitement in D&D adventuring is camping in dangerous and exotic locations. Some players find the current resting system unimmersive, when you can instantly access the safety of your camp from remote and dangerous, even impossible locations. Short rests don't serve a purpose if you can always opt for a long rest instead. Is the current resting system still a work in progress and can we expect it to change to become more D&D -like, as in the original BG games and more recently Pathfinder?

Agreed, although I think short rests are still useful as they are a bit less disruptive than the teleport to camp. I did find it disheartening how Swen was spamming short rest in his druid demo though, it’s as convenient as drinking a potion. In D&D you still need to rest for an hour, so you can easily be interrupted… you’re not going to do it in a dangerous area while you’re sneaking etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, as I only skimmed the 5e rules, but it is my understanding that the only consequence of long resting in current 5e DnD is time ( once every 24 hours ). As neither time pressure nor any need to eat exist in the game, the "rest anywhere" mechanic is actully in accordance with 5e.

It may not be what you consider the spirit of 5e, but it does seem to accurately reflect the rules.

Time pressure, need to eat, etc. exist to the extent that the DM and other players in your particular game acknowledge them. The rules don't strictly dictate what needs to happen because they don't need to; people fill this in on their own based on what makes sense to them.

I've only played in a few games where anyone cared about food - those were usually survival-focused, where resources were scarce. I have only rarely had a game where time pressure didn't exist in some form, and they were usually not very good as a result. I've never had a game where the players could go without sleep for days on end without consequences nor a game where you could get a full night's sleep, wake up and have a 30-second battle, and then go right back to sleep for another eight hours. It seems unreasonable to try to do these things because it is totally inconsistent with how things exist in the real world; there is no verisimilitude. Why would we accept something in this game that seems so ridiculous?

The target we should be aiming for isn't necessarily "a strict, literal interpretation of D&D 5e rules," it should be "this is a good game with engaging challenges and a world/characters/story that draw you in." That might be a result of using 5e rules - it might not (though I personally think that starting with a strong effort at strict interpretation would be a good strategy).

Exactly. I’ve played a lot of tabletop D&D, and no sane DM is going to let you take even a short rest when there’s a bunch of enemies literally 50’ away. I mean, they might let you try, but you’ll be interrupted within minutes. Common sense needs to be applied.

I would like to hear them explain their reasons for controls and UI as they are. What value does the hotbar design add over traditional (BG1&2, NWN2, PoE1&2, Solasta) ROG design. What do they gain through single character control+chaining system, over traditional multi-character select.

Are you gonna expand the modding possibilities, including custom campaigns and audio modding?

I would ask them what their plans for class progression is.

Ranger especially as they totally re-designed the class and discussing balance involving it is almost impossible without knowing what it gets at higher levels.

But also moon druid, as I suspect they might be holding multi-attack back until level 5 so the druid gets their "second attack" at the same time other melee classes do to avoid the absurdly OP early game moon druid problem.

I want to know what modding tools are going to be made available. BG3 may turn out to be a great game but with modding tools it could become a classic like NWN. I'm hoping we get the same tools as D:OS2 but with the D&D ruleset. Imagine the adventures and campaigns that could be created.

I'm not too worried about what Larian gets or doesn't get right as long as we have the tools to fix things.

I would ask them what their goals are for this game - what makes it a success/failure.

I would ask them how this game is supposed to feel. I would ask them about how important verisimilitude is to them and how they plan to achieve it.

I would ask them how they intend to use playtesters and other sources of information and how that feedback gets incorporated into the game.

I would ask them how they decide to use 5e RAW vs home-brewed rules.

I would ask them what they think they are doing well and what they think they are doing poorly. I would ask them about their plans in light of the answer to the previous question.

And then I would probably have a few hundred follow-up questions.

While I understand and accept rule changes due to being a video game instead of TT, many of Larian's homebrew rules don't NEED to be in the game at all. Food healing, backstab advantage, height advantage/disadvantage, scroll use for all classes, disengage as a bonus action and many others are simply the way they are because Larian said so rather than because they couldn't code things as they are in the TT.

With that in mind, my question would be how many of the Larian decision makers have actually played D&D and why did/do they feel the need to change/homebrew so much that isn't strictly related to converting the D&D system to a video game format?

I would just ask what classes and races they're working on now and what we should expect next.

I would ask Larian if their staff and contractors are well, and managing their lives successfully in the pandemic.

I would ask Larian if their expansion and integration of new studios is working out, and how this impacts their development ideas and plans.

I would ask Larian if they are content with their BG3 progress so far ( both EA and unreleased aspects ) against their original plans, and are confident that they can achieve their goals before running out of money ( Swen's only stated ship date ).

I would ask Larian how much of the game internals will be available open to modification, as that would potentially solve all the problems associated with the wide range of personal preferences on display.

And lastly, I would ask Larian if there is anything additional that interested EA players can do to help that we are not doing already through playing EA and expressing our opinions in public forums.

I would ask them if they consider incentivizing repetitive, micromanagement heavy, unbalancing and gamey tactics/mechanics practically limited only by patience or boredom to be a good mechanic for Larian house rules?

Thinking about everything from dipping weapons (only player), flanking (mostly player), shove (only player) long rest (ie. action surge can be once per combat instead of once per day), pickpocketing etc.

It’s a lovely idea and there are some pertinent questions suggested in the replies here. As much as I would like to see a more open dialogue between developer and community, are we ever really likely to see a response to any of them?

Why they said that their changes to D&D are needed for the video game environment when Solasta proves that this is not the case.

Will character import/export be available in this game? Just save state to save state in this game, not from another game. I do not want to play the NPCs if I drop into another game. I want my progress and gear for when I play with my wife and Friends.

Also, will we eventually get Goliaths?

Why is Lathander, one of the most prolific major deities, not a selectable God?
Especially since we need a full fledged nuetral good God for humans/humanoids to pick that isnt at all edgy, weird, or grim?

We need a "by the light!" Type god option.

...

My other question would be how they plan to implement the Paladin's divine smite

My question to Larian.

Have you played Baldurs gate 1 and 2 and finished the games?
What are your impressions on the atmosphere, gameplay, mechanics, dialogue, quests etc...?
Aside from the story, what elements did you enjoy and decided to revisit, upgrade and include in BG3?

Come now, we know why.

'Will there be a map designer?'

That would be my question.

Ok i am curious... Why??

They didn't try from scratch. This is a mod of their own games.

This is correct, except that it is an engine revision rather than a mod. The reason that Larian and WotC came to an agreement is probably that they both felt that the Larian DOS/DOS2 engine fit the requirements for a coop DnD experience.

Obviously Larian already have capabilities in the Engine from DOS2, which they mapped onto DnD where possible, before revising the engine to add features not already available. I'm sure Larian regard their core audience to be the people that bought DOS2, so it is important to keep that audience happy, while trying to expand the audience to new players attracted by Baldur's Gate and DnD material. Keeping everyone happy would only be possible through a fairly Byzantine set of optional behaviours.

Solasta, by contrast, is starting from no particular expectation, and aiming to build an audience mainly from the TableTop D&D player base. So they implement the current rules quite closely, and ( I assume ) accept that the wider videogame audience will probably find the game rather slow and uninteresting.

You can do ( almost ) anything you want when developing a computer-base game; the problem is finding something you want to do that is also commercially viable.

Yup! This!

I also agree.... all their Talking about „doesn’t fit a Videogalerie“ is nothing more that a cheap excuse for their engine not being able to handle a DnD game properly.

I have to agree. Personally, nothing what I've seen from Solasta's ads and lets plays so far has interested me.

Even back then not everyone who played the original BG games was a D&D player. And this is much easier to track nowadays, when steam tracks not only sales, but the number of players and also how many people even complete the game.

Ultimately that is the target audience if you want to make big sales: those who buy computer games. Small developers focus on their specific fanbase, because that is likely a guaranteed sale for them. But big companies and corporations I'd expect to rely on numbers.

Well based on Steam sales info the BG3 EA has:

sold 10x the copies of Solasta

has double the average playtime by the players who have bought those copies

has a 32 times higher all time concurrent playerbase

has 35 times the peak players in the last 24hrs

So basically, when they said that, they were using the good old Obi Wan Kenobi "point of view" perspective of what constitutes a successful and profitable product for them as a production studio.

Most of these points are restating the same thing: that BG3 has sold more copies than Solasta. Which is not at all surprising, considering that BG3:
-is a game officially backed by WotC using the D&D 5e license
-is made by a studio with hundreds of employees whose most recent game was a huge hit (and who have had experience making 6? other games)
-has the name association with a very popular (the most popular?) crpg series of all time

Solasta, on the other hand, is the first game of a 14-person studio and does not have the D&D full license so can't use all of its rules or its setting.

A higher number of sales doesn't mean that Larian's gameplay decisions are better; BG3's higher name-brand recognition and advertising budget can probably explain most of the difference in sales, especially while both games are still in EA.
Average playtime is a better metric, but is not conclusive. I've played some amazing 2-hour games and some pretty mediocre 10+ hour games.

Damn, with this kinda logic, Cyberpunk 2077 was 2020's game of the year, wasn't it? It did sell like 3x the amount that BG3 EA did, right?

But yes, Larian is no longer some random indie developer. Everyone on both sides needs to recognize that Larian now has a certain audience like any other popular studio. That is to say, they are now basically an AAA studio that as a company (and its rather admittedly rabid fanbase at this point) clings onto its indie image in an effort to shake off all of the negative connotations that can come with that.

They do have an audience to maintain, for better or for worse. And quite frankly, BG3 is fascinating to me for a lot of reasons, but the one aspect that would be relevant to this particular topic is that the game would prove if Larian's success is deserved, or if they'll make the same mistakes that causes them to join the ranks of CDProjekt Red and Bioware in infamy, who used to be equally beloved by their fanbases behaving in much of the same ways before.

And speaking as someone that actually knew of a Larian before D:OS2, the answer is actually unclear to me at this moment.

Why do you keep using this control scheme where we can only select one character at a time? It's so much clunkier than the RTS style control scheme almost every CRPG has used for the last two decades.

Why is this game's UI just one big unsorted hot bar? D&D has classes, and classes can have a wide variety of abilities and spells available at one time and then change them frequently. Dumping them all on a single hot bar and having the player manually sort and resort them sucks. These are issues CRPGs have had figured out for years, so why can't BG3 meet that standard?

Will you ever learn?
Is this another disappointment like Cp2077?

Indie games tend to cater to their smaller fanbases, because that is likely a guaranteed sale for them. But once you are dealing with big player numbers, you are likely dealing with a more varied customer group. In case of BG3 you have fans of BG, fans of DOS, fans of D&D, general players who bought it because of the hype, and so on. So a developers needs to balance between the expectations of these groups, and they don't always agree.

For example, I'm not a D&D player. I've enjoyed Baldur's Gate a lot, but I couldn't even finish that first village in Temple of Elemental Evil, it was that boring to play. And ToEE was the game that was advertised as a faithful adaptation of the rules.

I'm not flat-out saying BG3 is a better game than Solasta based on these things alone; I'm saying that when you have a known formula, that you know works, and you have the costs of a AAA release to cover, you probably don't want to screw around breaking new territory. However I could also not that Steam's estimated average minutes of Solasta played over the last 3 weeks is... 0 minutes...


I've seen very little complaining that Cyberpunk was not a good game; it's issues were with the botched release state of the game and their stock's value dip is clearly linked to the game's being pulled from several platforms.

When are you going to implement proper limits and restrictions for Classes so we actually have a TRUE D&D CLASS SYSTEM with party synergy and not a DOS2 "handymen" system reskin?

When are you going to delete the Stealth Ultracheese where A.I. gets broken and simply passes turns to infinite and beyond?

When are you going to carefully plan encounters instead of lazily sponging up some enemy with overscaling and calling it a boss fight?

When are you going to implement a transfer all/send all to camp/select all buttons for inventory management so it doesn't feel like we are stuck in 1984?

When are you going to delete the over 9000 healing and restoration sources that completely trivialize the priest class?

When are you going to delete the over 9000 throwables and barrels that completely trivialize all enemy encounters?

When are you going to nerf the insanely high advantage bonuses ( Ex. Height )?

When are you going to implement actual useful magic items that have UNIQUE EFFECTS, can be used in builds and have very interesting lore instead of having a slightly scaled generalization of them like in DOS2?

When are you going to make spells and skills that work just like in D&D?

When are you going to make a dice roller that feels like a dice roller instead of a fake weighted one?

When are you going to put a proper randomizer for container loot so you don't get 99.9% empty containers from looting and feels like a complete waste of time?

When are you going to stop using the same DOS randomizer for merchants/traders which was the worst aspect of that game because of how insanely abusable and annoying it is at the same time?

When are you going to implement a proper resting system with penalizations since it basically means infinite free heal aside from recovering spells slots?

When are you going to make an actual D&D game?

This is not a question but a suggestion: OVERSCALING shouldn't be the answer to everything in your game.

Larian is already breaking new territory though. As much as people like to say BG3 is basically DOS3, there are a fair amount of differences between the 2 games. Different # of action points, different abilities/spells, a whole D&D class system, no armor/magic armor, an entirely new setting, d20 checks and rolling d20s, freakin' cinematics.

Things like reactions, jump+disengage as a bonus action instead of an action or as separate abilities, eating food in combat, Advantage from height (instead of just increased range or only a +2): all these things are well within the scope of changes Larian has made already. Larian could have implemented these more true to D&D very easily without deviating from the known formula more then they already are.

Why all the cities and villages are so close together?

Why can everything backstab, including a bear Wild Shape?

Why can you eat a pig head food and heals more than a potion for a bonus action?

Why is combat based on exploiting homebrew?

What are they supposed to learn in your opinion and what has it to do with CP2077?

BG3 in EA is already a far better game than CP2077 in my opinion... So just because you don't like it doesn't mean that others don't like it either.

It would be nice if you could really make a fair point with your question instead just spreading negativity.

Finally, some REAL and valid questions/issues here.

Larians answer: DIPPING!

Is the UI pretty much what we’re going to get or will it continue to change before release? The UI for Dark Alliance feels much more like a D&D game because it uses the same typefaces and design language as the 5E books. BG3 has the same typeface and largely the same design style as DOS so feels like the next in that series.

my questions:
- Why did you do all the rule changes to DnD 5E (merge jump and disengage, backstab advantage, hight advantage, missing fire arrows cause a burning surface and so on?)
I think they ruin the differences between classes and make the game more boring because they encourage players to repeat the same non DnD "tactics" over and over again.

- Will you make changes to the UI, especially adding a spell menu and making inventory management less annoying?
I did not really like it in DOS1+2, but now that we have many different classes and more spells then ever its worse than before.

- Why did you invent the chain system for party control in the first place?
From my point of view I see no reason to change the system used by BG1+2 and many other party based RPGs.

my comments:
- To be honest, BG2 did not really restrict resting and there were very few quests with a timer.

- About Solasta vs BG3
Larian has already made several large games with their own fan base and Baldurs Gate and Dungeons and Dragons are very famous and have their own fan base.
On the other hand Solasta is made by a small and new company.
Its no miracle that BG3 sold more units, but this is not an evidence that Solasta is a bad game or sticking close to DnD rules is a bad idea.

- I can understand that the DOS engine fits well to a DnD game.
Its a 3D party based and turn based RPG. Many game mechanics are different. But this is mostly numbers, like how this stat influences damage and hit chance and when you roll a saving throw against what. The game is made in a way that you can add new abilities and status effects and since Larians rules are more "crazy" (sorry, I lack a good word for this) it should be no problem to reproduce DnD rules with this engine.
Still, you should make some big changes to UI so it fits better to a different setting with different rules, such as having different classes and tons of spells that are sorted by spell levels.

"Will you adjust summoning mechanics to be closer to 5e?"

Is what I'd ask, summoning is usually my main focus with stuff.

Does anybody actually believe any longer they read this? Lest answer to it?

Even if they do i'm pretty sure they don't care about anything even if it's valid criticism. Sven must have a pretty clear idea of what he wants.

A cinematic experience with tons of explosions everywhere, just like the original BG games.

Will it run at 24 fps only?

My question would be: do you plan to add some ruleset customization options (like the ones Solasta is adding next week in their new update) at some point up to full release, in order to make gameplay appealing to even more players, im interested in options especially:
- food healing on/off
- universal scroll using on/off
- changing some bonus actions to main actions (shove), bringing them closer to the 5e rules
- option for jump distance nerf, jump itself to separate from disengage and removing that its avoiding attackofopportunity
- highground to give a smaller flat bonus instead of advantage/disadvantage
- long rest restrictions on/off
- option for reactions to have pop-up option next to automatic on/off
- encumbrance effects on/off
- can loose concentration on/off
- being able to see enemy stats and vulnerabilties/resistances (without gaining knowledge about or encountering them at least once) on/off
- failed exploration checks to hide/show
- companion approvals hide/show
- option to take 10 for dialogue skill checks on/off
- option to take 10 for exploration skill checks on/off
- options to set the game to forced turn based if a character is downed or a trap is detected etc

It would be nice if difficulty options affecting how many enemies we encounter and how equipped/skilled they are (like the way DOS2 tactical mode changed it i think) we would be able to set up SEPARATELY from these.
Presets are essential so new players dont get overwhelmed with options but would be nice if it would be possible to separately tweak these and carefully tailor the experience for multiple playthroughs
So my question is basically whether they have plans to do smthg like the above

YESSSSS!!!! God, those options would be *AMAZING* to have!!!!! It would literally make the game one hundred times better! <3

Total agreement to Mat22 as well

- What have you learned from player data?
(most deadly encounter, most often used ability, stuff like this)
Did you change things because of this?

Problem I have with this.

Gamers will use what works. They shouldn't disregard things (hi Bless) because it's ineffective, when they have made it so.

Going to try to avoid the feedback topics.

Will a character modification mirror be in the game like dos2? Mostly for minor respect and visual modification. I dont like idea of relying on mods outside the game for everything.

Will their be a dye system?

Will barbarian beast totem get spells since rituals so far have been changed into spells?

Can Helia not be a short race? Real limited on the good girls and a tiny good girl bard feels like a slap in the face for the "nuance" approach talked about in official video's. How about a human girl? Half Orc girl? pure elf girl? Aasimar girl? Please just dont make a copy paste Linzie from pathfinder kingmaker. Think of the romance. I may vomit. Just commit to nuance. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Any news on reacts? Paladins depend on it. Also taking actions on enemy turns such as oath of vengeance relentless avenger.

Can you leave out the exhaustion mechanics so frenzy barbarians can fight freely?

Can you somehow convince wotc to let you add the following: divine soul sorcerer, SCAG spells especially for Eldritch knights, tasha's expansion in general, Goliath and Aasimar?

Are their any further plans for helping martial characters keep up with casters as the game progresses in terms of engagement? Extra abilites on weapons helps so I'm curious.

Will you test out the good companions with the same dedication as the neutral and evil companions? No guarantee that everything is perfect and they deserve a feedback phase as well.

Any plans for exploring companions outside of romance? To be honest I'm not a fan of locking story behind romance. Hell I'm not even sure I like romance much any more in this game. I have a traditional bias that is comparitively private. Less sex more story. I like things hinted at, private, and brief so I can keep the story going. To much dating sim bogs my experience down more than adds to it. If I have to full on date characters for story I may just give up on it all together. Sorry for the rant.

I have noticed that some events are in fact timed by resting. Can you add a tutorial message saying so? I'd rather know than not.

As a Paladin, will tenets affect story and what i can say?

Will class changing events be a possibility? Like as a paladins you pick a choice that is against the tenets of your subclass and you get a brief cutscene letting you know you have forcefully changed to an oath breaker. Or the obvious cleric and loyalty issues.

Druids get fancy titles and gear. Is it safe to assume every class gets exclusive content and titles to be fair?

I have also noticed potion of speed is quite popular. Any plans to change specific abilites and spells to bonus actions. I think some abilites on the weaker side could benefit. I personally don't care about chaining things to vanilla 5e since the expansion books are where the fun is and they are all modifications as well as additions.

I'm not expecting any answers, but I'm asking anyway.

The question "Are you even trying at this point?" comes to mind.

Welcome back Tuco